What decision is the compensation comparison meant to support?
This worksheet compares live procurement arrangements, not a generic fee range. A hotel needs to understand how each route pays its adviser, which services are included, and how those costs interact with the supplier offer. Assemble the actual proposals before deciding that one arrangement is cheaper or more aligned with the hotel’s needs.
Name the property or portfolio, fuel, meters, proposed service term, and forecast used. Date the comparison because an expired price cannot fairly compete with a current offer. Record who prepared the proposals and whether the broker evaluated multiple suppliers or presented a single product.
The broker fee explanation establishes the payment mechanisms. This guide takes the next step: translating competing proposals into a common decision record with written exclusions and a visible service boundary.
Which disclosure obligations belong to this account?
For Illinois licensed agents, brokers, and consultants, Section 454.90 addresses disclosure of total price per kilowatt-hour and anticipated cost inclusive of fees or commissions within its stated scope. That is not the same as a universal obligation to publish every internal commission line separately. Apply the rule to the covered role and transaction.
The Texas broker requirements in 16 TAC 25.486 address broker communications and agency arrangements in Texas’s competitive electricity setting. The particular customer and arrangement matter. The rule is not authority for a national disclosure policy covering every hotel, gas transaction, or advisory service.
Request clear compensation information even when the legal minimum is framed differently. A procurement team can require a useful comparison as part of its own process. Keep that request distinct from a claim that a particular statute mandates the requested format everywhere.
What belongs in the common comparison boundary?
| Field | Common basis | Offer-specific evidence |
|---|---|---|
| Volume | Same forecast and scenario dates | Applicable billed quantity definition |
| Term | Same comparison period | Start, end, and renewal provisions |
| Embedded compensation | Unit amount and assumed total | Written inclusion in supplier price |
| Direct fee | Fixed or variable amount separately shown | Invoice schedule and exclusions |
| Services | Named deliverables and responsible person | Proposal or service agreement |
| Additional compensation | Identify conditional or later amounts | Renewal and extra-service terms |
Do not convert gas and electricity quantities into one unexplained unit-fee average. Keep their units explicit. In a portfolio, show both account-level assumptions and the combined total so a property with a different arrangement is not hidden by aggregation.
How can a worked example keep compensation and price separate?
Assume, solely for illustration, a hotel forecast of 1,800,000 kWh per year and a two-year comparison period. Fictional Offer A includes broker compensation of $0.001 per kWh inside its supplier price. Its assumed annual compensation is 1,800,000 multiplied by $0.001, or $1,800. Over two identical assumed years, that is $3,600.
Fictional Offer B includes $0.0007 per kWh inside its supplier price and a separate $600 annual service fee. Its assumed embedded amount is $1,260 per year, plus $600, giving $1,860 annually and $3,720 over two years. The fixed fee remains visible because its behavior differs from the unit component.
Now assume the complete supplier prices, already including embedded compensation, are $0.092 per kWh for A and $0.0915 for B. A’s assumed annual supply cost is $165,600. B’s is $164,700 plus the excluded $600 fee, or $165,300. B has $300 lower cost in this simplified scenario despite higher total adviser compensation. These invented inputs are not current offers, typical fees, or a recommendation.
What does the example leave unresolved?
The calculation intentionally assumes identical consumption, two repeated years, and no other cost differences. Actual offers can differ in pass-through charges, volume treatment, taxes, billing arrangements, or other exclusions. Those differences must be reconciled before the hotel’s real decision is made.
The energy price-components guide helps identify included and excluded items. If one offer includes a component and another leaves it adjustable, their headline prices are not yet equivalent. Do not solve that problem by ignoring the uncertain component.
The January 2025 NextEra New York filing includes business forms with unit compensation disclosures. It is a dated form example showing why the payment unit needs attention, not a current fee quote or proof of what a particular broker earns. Use the actual offer’s written terms for the hotel’s worksheet.
How should the hotel build and check the worksheet?
- Obtain written compensation, pricing inclusions, direct fees, and service scope for each proposed route.
- Define one forecast, account list, service period, and scenario date for the comparison.
- Calculate embedded compensation separately without adding it again to an inclusive supplier price.
- Add direct charges only where the proposal excludes them from the supplier amount.
- Reconcile differences in price components and identify uncertainties that cannot yet be normalized.
- Review services, recommendation incentives, and renewal conditions before approving the selected arrangement.
Retain the original unit expression as well as its normalized equivalent. This lets a reviewer trace each conversion and prevents a later forecast change from silently altering the comparison’s meaning.
Have a second person check units and inclusion flags. A correctly multiplied commission can still produce a wrong total if the spreadsheet counts it twice. Preserve the offer pages supporting each input and label any assumption not supplied by the provider.
Avoid hiding a fee inside an unlabeled adjustment column. If an amount covers a different period from the energy term, state the boundary. A one-time implementation fee and an annual support fee should not be treated as interchangeable simply because both are fixed.
Which service and incentive questions matter?
Ask what the hotel receives after signing. Possible proposal items include enrollment coordination, invoice checks, renewal planning, account additions, or assistance assembling a billing query. Do not presume those services are included because the arrangement is described as full service. Name the deliverables and confirm who performs them.
Ask whether compensation varies by supplier, product, term, volume, or renewal. A difference does not prove a recommendation is unsuitable, but it can help the hotel understand incentives and question the comparison. Record the explanation alongside the proposed decision.
Identify any limits on authority. The broker may coordinate information without power to enroll additional meters, accept amendments, or settle disputes. Use the agreement hierarchy guide to distinguish supplier terms from a separate advisory arrangement and prevent a service summary from being mistaken for contract authority.
When is the comparison ready for approval?
The decision file should contain the written proposals, common assumptions, compensation schedule, inclusive-cost calculation, and service comparison. It should also state what remains uncertain and who will resolve it. A ranked table with unexplained blanks is not a completed procurement review.
Test a lower and higher volume assumption where the hotel’s plans make them relevant. This tests how fixed and unit components behave; it does not forecast an outcome or change the signed volume provisions. Keep the base case consistent across offers.
The contracts hub connects related pricing and notice decisions. Approve the complete arrangement with a clear reason tied to price structure, service requirements, and risk allocation. Preserve the compensation comparison so the next renewal team can distinguish what was disclosed, what was assumed, and what services were actually agreed.